Skip to comments.Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
In a word, yes. FWIW, I simply saw this thing as a First Amendment -- free speech, not freedom of religion -- issue.
No argument there. But the case outcome did have precendent that supported the decision. What I or you may personally believe and what is case law are two different things.
Certainly you would think American citizens ought to have some awareness of how "Nature's God" fit into the philosophy of the Framers, and got written into the DoI -- which is the set-up to both the Preamble and the Constitution itself. The historical fact is American culture is profoundly Christian -- and still is, believe it or not.
At the time of the Framers, most people learned these things in church, where those who have made a lifetime of devotion and study are the teachers. Not those in a secular world.
You are trying to frame the argument on the merits of ID and the fight against what many are referring to Darwinian materialism. That was not what this case was about. That's also what the Discovery Institute is also trying to do. And the Trojan Horse I mention, while not in their materials spelled out as such, is contained in their wedge document.
God created us, the universe and all the living things and seas. But there is also scientific evidence that shows things are also a bit more complex than just "six days of poof". Some of the Darwinian theory tries to explain that. A lot of it falls into known scientific evidence. Some doesn't. And a lot remains unanswered.
But the fact remains, that ID is the Trojan Horse to move the Creation Theory back into our schools. It's almost as bad as Peter when he denied God three times. ID does the same.
For that, I'm dismayed in my fellow believers.
#####I don't know of any teacher's talking about parallel universes either. I do think that the scientific establishment WOULD be upset if parallel universes were discussed as accepted science.#####
I never said anything about accepted science. Just a discussion of parallel universes as a possibility. No one would object to that. But a designer as a possibility would be forbidden.
i.e. if you can't measure it, it don't exist..
Interesting concept.. The Shultz syndrome.. "I see nothing, know nothing, do NOTHING".. when it comes to things I don't know and can't prove, exists.. LoL..
The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?
So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?
Your PC isn't any better than theirs. Better to eliminate PC entirely.
I can't imagine how you derived this conclusion from what I wrote.
Actually, there are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary and those who don't.
I know of no scientist in their right mind who would make that claim. There is indeed a large void in our knowledge. The void is filled either with the supernatural or the undiscovered or both. But to say that science can discern between the the supernatural & undiscovered is dishonest. Such things lie outside the province of science and, while they make for interesting conversation, don't belong in a science curriculum.
If it ain't testable, it ain't science.
####Parallel universes is scientific speculation, though I doubt very seriously if most scientists would think it should be discussed in a classroom. The Designer is a theological speculation.####
How is discussion of a parallel universe scientific if it such a universe can't be observed, measured, falsified, etc., by the standards you fellows have set up for science to follow?
Personally, I don't think much time should be spent on discussing parallel universes, but it wouldn't bother me if they were discussed a little. Nor do I think much time needs to be spent on discussing a possible designer, but I see no reason to forbid it.
Indeed, there are two separate issues involved. On the one hand, the intelligent design movement seeks to remove methodological naturalism as a presupposition.
On the other hand is the intelligent design hypothesis which must stand or fall on its own merits: that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
The issue of motive of the supporters (on any side) is a legal sidebar. And as you have so clearly explained - whether in law, policy or education - one can speak of God and yet neither promote nor establish a religion.
In the end, the Supreme Court will clean up the mess it created with the Lemon decision.
#####The question is why would this be relevant at the high school level. Would it be part of a general discussion of group differences?#####
It wouldn't be discussed at all. It's generally forbidden. If it can't be discussed at Harvard how can it be discussed in Public School #32?
I think my claim is evidenced by the fact that there is an enormous bulwark against teaching anything contrary to evolution in the public schools.
How do you know?
Let us assume all the above is true. Given that there is no objective measure for "design" and "purpose", as established previously and demonstrable mathematically, of what use is your definition in demonstrating intelligent design?
Remember, just because P implies Q does not make the assertion that Q implies P a valid construction. Elementary first-order logic.
#####So your answer to the left's PC is to insert your own?#####
No, I'm not for censoring science at all. But there are leftist groups who are, and who get away with it.
####Your PC isn't any better than theirs.#####
If I had any PC, I'd agree.
#####Better to eliminate PC entirely.#####
And how do we measure pain/pleasure, love/hate, joy/sorrow just to name a few qualia?
"How do you know?"
Because God can't be observed, directly or indirectly. :)
All qualia are grounded in physical, measurable phenomona. How directly and precisely one measures it is a function of technical capability.
The theory of how it happened may not be random, but why it happened certainly is. And besides, the theory that life somehow began from a primordial soup is most certainly random, without purpose or explanation. This in and of itself does not make it wrong (though I believe that it is wrong), just describing what it is.
Well, I gotta go for now. Duty calls. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic without getting angry. I'm sure we'll debate again.
There is no objective measure for "natural" and "supernatural" either. Be that as it may, the common definitions of "design" and "purpose" make the connection with intelligence to be a reasonable one. Not an irrefutable one, to be sure, but it is not a wild stretch by any means.
IMHO, we need to lay aside all of our presuppositions and look at the intelligent design hypothesis on its merits.
An "intelligent cause" could be either a phenomenon (such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) or an agent (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc...)
Something as simple as animals choosing their mates could be established as the "intelligent cause" for "certain features".
IOW, it doesn't matter whether the "intelligent cause" was a phenomenon or an agent. And it doesn't cover "all features" - i.e. the hypothesis is not a theory of origins, just like the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins.
ID *is* PC.
ID requires us to redefine words. It elevates feelings to the level of facts.
It's every bit as dangerous as the original.
You're quite welcome, js1138!
"I still believe that the ID movement is more about backdooring a way into the Creation story versus an alternative scientifically based hypothisis. It was a Trojan Horse from all things people of faith."
That is your opinion - and sadly, there are quite a few who truly believe that evolution is the main power play for atheism as an ideology - along with all its political agenda.
It's more than an opinion - it's the admitted purpose of both the Discovery Insitute, the main proponent of ID, and the school board in this case.
Conversely, I challenge you to find any scientific organizations promoting the ToE that have atheism as a stated goal.
Actually, motive is rather central. If the First Amendment were only about free speech, then the ID folks would have a free hand in government schools -- and so would everything else. But there is also the establishment clause. Free speech doesn't allow government agents to violate the establishment clause. That's why it's a necessary condition of state action that it must have a secular purpose.
It's happening in my very household. When I went to the grocery store the other day my 13 y/o daughter asked "Dad, can I come along?"
And we TALKED! About stuff that MATTERS!!! And she contributed mightily to the discussion.
Where did I go wrong?
Sure they can. They can take what they studied in science, compare it to what they have studied in church or discussed with their parents, and make up their own mind.
Knowledge and information are funny that way, learn it here, apply it there.
#####Group differences are a mainstay of junk science. I seldom see them discussed except by people who have a vested interest in being in the superior or privileged group.#####
Then you wrote:
#####I would like to start a discussion on the rather obvious IQ difference between people who accept evolution and those who don't.#####
I'll assume you were joking!
It would be too objectionable for scientific organizations to have this as a stated goal. Better to have it as an unstated principle and then have it established by law as the only principle suited to scientific discussion.
Moreover, whatever "ruler" you might wish to use, all that can result is yet another description of "it" - a quantization of a continuum of such measurements - and does not tell us what "it" is until we actually and directly experience "it".
Or to put it another way, one can describe an animal until he is blue in the face - develop vast piles of data comparing the animal to all kinds of other things - and still not know what the animal "is".
In which case, as Exhibit #1 - I offer to you Richard Dawkins.
You are obviously on the right side of the curve.
"It's happening in my very household. When I went to the grocery store the other day my 13 y/o daughter asked "Dad, can I come along?"
And we TALKED! About stuff that MATTERS!!! And she contributed mightily to the discussion.
Where did I go wrong?"
Let's check the paper trail, and see what the Church itself cited as its support for its conclusion that the Sun moved around the Earth, and the reason they considered opposing (and *correct*) opinions to be heresy punishable by arrest, shall we?
"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators."FYI, Bellarmine had a big role in the trial of Galileo.
"I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, as "Master of Controversial Questions" for the Church, in April 12, 1615 letter to Paolo Foscarini
Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; [...] and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
The relevant portions of the mentioned books of the Bible are:
Ecclesiastes 1 (Verses 5-6): 5 The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, 6 Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.Next time, try researching an issue before you post your presumptions about it as if they were fact.
Joshua 10 (Verse 13-14): And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Psalm 19 (Verses 4-5): 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psalm 92 (Verse 1): The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.
Psalm 103 (Verses 3-5) Who coverest the higher rooms thereof with water. Who makest the clouds thy chariot: who walkest upon the wings of the winds. 4 Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire. 5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
Isaiah 40 (Verse 21-22): 21 Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Would you prefer only "slightly atheistic science", or maybe "partially theistic science".
I know I'm being a tad sarcastic, but modifying science with "atheistic" or even "theistic" just seems a bit off.
ROFL!!! Cling to that if it helps you sleep at night. But come on, be honest -- were the creationists not equally or even more "agitated" by the trial? Why couldn't the creationist side "get its voters out to the polls" in a predominantly REPUBLICAN county? And if you don't think that the creationists weren't producing massive amounts of "lopsided media coverage" of their own, you *really* haven't been paying attention.
Mein Gott, Shotsie.
the mullahs disagree :)
I can come up with seriously flawed examples of causality as well.
Our kids today get dumber and dumber and less literate, and they have access to more religious television programming than previous generations.
Generally science can take place without reference to either assumption. Like public schools, it ought to be free to engage the mind without coercion from one ideology or another.
The theory of how it happened may not be random, but why it happened certainly is.
What do you mean, "why"? If you mean "why does natural selection exist", the answer is that it's a natural consequence of differential results due to variation. It's not as if some deity had to "install" a "law of selection" into the laws of the Universe. To the contrary, it would take a magic wand to *prevent* natural selection from inevitably arising when variability is present.
And besides, the theory that life somehow began from a primordial soup is most certainly random,
without purpose or explanation.